<<Print>>

Last Tuesday was both a sad and a happy day for me. But for the fact that there is an injunction on me by �Wife and Friends of Kwesi Biney� a concerned group I have never met, to limit myself to only two tots of my all weather mahogany bitters, I would have boozed well well that day. I felt for my professional colleague, Ken Kuranchie, the Editor-in-Chief of the Daily Searchlight who was sentenced to 10 days imprisonment by the Supreme Court for contemptuous comments on the front page of his paper. I met Ken Kuranchie when I was working for the Ghanaian Chronicle. He was a stringer filing very good stories from mostly the courts in Tema and Accra. When I moved to take up the Editorship of The Guide in 1998, he was there reporting for the paper. He did not stay long under my Editorship. He was a hard working guy who was very committed to Journalism, very vocal when it comes to his beliefs and ideas. Having been a victim of a court decision to remand me in prison custody in the practice of journalism in a matter of an alleged criminal libel against a former Minister of Justice and Attorney-General of this country, I appreciate the pains one goes through in the performance of his duties to the state, particularly when the pains are directly linked to the job and not the ordinary crimes committed day-to-day by citizens. I share the agonies and pains of Ken Kuranchie this moment, but I take consolation from the fact that any journalist worth his salt has no fears at all with court incarcerations in our part of the world. Ghana has a number of journalists who spent prison terms for practicing their calling in the general interest of this country at a time a culture of silence had been imposed on this nation. Sadly, the Ghana Journalists Association (GJA) hardly celebrates braze trailers to the destination of free speech which is an inalienable right. The fight for the independence of the Media and the establishment of free speech had a place in the 1992 Constitution as it is found in Chapter 12. However, Article 164 of the Constitution says, ��this Constitution are subject to laws that are reasonably required in the interest of national security, public order, public morality and for the purpose of protecting the reputations, rights and freedoms of other persons�. What this means is that the freedoms which the Constitution grant us in the exercise of our freedom of speech should be done taking into consideration, certain national and individual interests. In other words, there are limits to the exercise of those rights enshrined in the Constitution. It is a fact that a lot of irresponsibility is being exercised in the application of some of our rights, particularly on the electronic media without regard to Article 164 of the Constitution. One may argue that having gone through a long period of culture of silence, the excitement in the new found freedom can push some of us into the extremes. As human beings, it is not so much that one makes a mistake or commits a crime, but the realization of the commission of a crime or making a mistake and learning lessons from those mistakes and allowing those lessons to guide your future actions. My happiness is founded on the breaks the Supreme Court has put on all of us. The truth of the matter is that this nation has been entangled by irresponsible acts in all facets of our lives, socially, politically, economically, culturally, morally, you name them. While irresponsible attacks on the Judiciary undermines our collective hope for justice, some other such comments have the tendency to plunge this nation into chaos, particularly when such irresponsible statements like those of Stephen Atubiga are made on air. Unfortunately, the political system we are running now seem to accept this irresponsible conduct. It is trite knowledge that many irresponsible comments made on air by both hosts and guests are applauded by some political followers because they are made against their political opponents. Indeed, some ministers in the current government have their positions on account of insults and irresponsible statements they have made against some respectable citizens of this nation in the past. Indiscipline in our socio-political lives has become normal and acceptable as it were. In other words, to catch the eyes of the Power that be, one must be seen to be very acerbic in the exercise of his or her freedom of expression irrespective of its effects on individuals or the nation as a whole. I was not surprised that Stephen Atubiga, who had sojourned in the U.S.A for 14 years as a �professional electrician� would want his voice heard very loudly so he can be considered for political appointment. When he was caught by the law, �irresponsibility� became his watchword. From the day he was summoned, Atubiga moved from one FM station to the other shouting �oooo, I am irresponsible, hei my brother, the food I even ate this morning was irresponsible, I was irresponsible and take responsibility for my irresponsibility which are products of irresponsible life.� Before the Lordships, any question was answered with �I take responsibility for my irresponsible comments�. I am sure if he had been asked �what is your name?� he probably would have said �I take responsibility for my irresponsible name.� Hmm, errr, pooho-pooho, what are you wearing? �My Lords, these are irresponsible trousers and a naughty black shoe�. Are you married? �I take responsibility for the suffering of my wife�, how many children do you have? �I have irresponsibly given birth to 6 children, my Lords�. I believe majority of Ghanaians appreciate the two decisions of the Supreme Court in respect of the saga of the creation, looting and sharing of public funds by some highly placed irresponsible criminals in our society. People trained and educated with the tax payers� monies and given jobs and paid to protect the resources of this country have made it a point to irresponsibly loot our monies on daily basis. Each year, the amount of monies which are stolen from the national kitty as per the Auditor General�s report are so scandalous to the image of this country just as they undermine the development agenda of this country. Yet, they are discussed publicly, allowed to die and the perpetrators enjoy those monies with impunity. No Court in this land on its own can invite criminals or suspected criminals to answer questions of both criminal and irresponsible nature that affects the state unless the Attorney-General, who the Constitution empowers to initiate actions of criminal nature on suspects and put them before the courts has done so. Hon. Martin Amidu succeeded in his actions because they were of Constitutional nature. So you see, while Atubiga engaged in irresponsible utterances which have the tendency to plunge this country into chaos, the irresponsible conduct of some public officers have deprived this nation millions of GH� urgently needed to solve problems afflicting majority of our citizenry and they are walking freely. I am sure if the government is serious enough to bring them to book, many would stand before our Lordships and confirm how irresponsible they have been in their public lives. While individual comments by the Ken Kuranchies and Stephen Atubigas undermine and scandalize the courts, the irresponsible conduct of some public officers, is the cause of the level of poverty in our society, the huge numbers of young criminals, the ever increasing number of school dropouts, the growing number of children on the streets, the new phenomenon of spousal murders and the general disharmony in many marital homes are the creation of people who wilfully engage in acts which deprive all of us of the collective resource for our collective good. Recent events by the Supreme Court has offered us the hope that there is an institution whose members are ready to pull the breaks on irresponsible conduct and behaviour once those acts get before them. What directly affects the Supreme Court? It has the powers to invite the suspects but those which affect the nation, the government through its Attorney-General needs to initiate actions. Any responsible government would do that to stem irresponsibility in the society except when the government is itself irresponsible and encourages and applauds irresponsible behaviour.